The African Renaissance is taking place and through it we are fortunate to be at the forefront of seeing Africa take her place in the world. There are ongoing efforts at decolonising several industries, reclaiming narratives as well as embracing and contextualising cultures. The idea of Global Africanism looks at where Africa finds herself during this transformative era and how she interacts with her global peers.
The term was popularised in an edition of the General History of Africa project which was introduced by UNESCO in an effort to support Africans reclaiming their narratives. The purpose of the Global African movement was to bridge the militant goals of the Pan-African movement with the diplomatic efforts of international bodies such as the AU and the UN. On one end, making PanAfricanism fit global diplomacy standards has been seen as a form of giving up and folding over to forceful powers, with leaders such as Malcom X fervently urging his followers to remain distrustful when it came to diplomatic approaches to conflict resolution. On the other hand it is the diplomatic approaches of leaders such as Nelson Mandela, that helped translate PanAfrican goals and get state freedom.
In his 2019 paper A call for a ‘right to development’- informed pan-Africanism in the twenty-first century, Kamga discusses how the rest of the world can take part in the African Renaissance particularly in the realisation of the right to development. That way, he essentially incorporates Global Africanism in his arguments. Outlining how international tools created to maintain diplomatic relations, can be useful pathways for development only if Pan-African goals are centralised rather than the neo-colonialist outcomes that many African countries have become subjected to. This right is outlined in Article 22 of the 1981 African Union Charter, the basis of the 2001 New Partnerships for Africa’s Development program by the Au as well as Resolution 41/128 of the UN General Assembly (the Declaration on the Right to Development) and is embodied in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
In a 1998 speech Thabo Mbeki made a reference to the Japanese Meiji period when illustrating the possibilities of the African Renaissance, a time of industrialisation for the Japanese and successful resistance to being colonised. In this it’s made clear that most important means of achieving this is building such an interest, especially amongst the emerging young Africans, to form united African nations, to learn and contextualise what’s working for others, all while maintaining cultural integrity.
Thabo Mbeki spoke a lot about the African Renaissance during his presidency, making clear his ambitions to bring South Africa to a level playing field with global superpowers. This ambition and vision stirred up hope for a much more successful South Africa, but in implementation, he faced criticism for placing so much focus on these diplomatic relations that he’d neglect meeting many South Africans’ immediate needs like employment for a great amount of the youths. That being said, Kamga’s approach seems to address what much of Thabo Mbeki’s approach missed. Voicing how the need to meet practical needs is an international objective that can still be met.
Global Africanism and the African Renaissance are PanAfrican concepts that, not only call for the imagination of a better future, but collaborative efforts to making that future a reality. Kamga makes it clear that the potential exists for everyone to take part in this. We’re one year closer to the Global Agenda for Sustainable Development’s vision 2030 and it’s exciting to see ideas that aim to make PanAfrican goals a reality.
Painting: The Right to Equality by Minna Pietarinen
My interest in visual art has been in relation to how art brings about justice, transforms and documents culture and good old slice of life type of work. The work in the “I was born a girl” is a well timed reminder for women’s rights defenders to never lose hope. The exhibition was launched at the Goethe institute and HISA center, hosted by the Finnish embassy in honour of the 16 Days of activism against Gender Based Violence, taking place from the 24th of November to the 10th of December. I have no doubt that it was a worthwhile experience for anyone who appreciates art as a tool for justice. A project by Minna Pietarinene and Peppi Stunkel to highlight the incredible efforts of women’s rights activists and leaders from different parts of the globe. Each piece comes with a poem and corresponding human rights and their stories, succinctly capturing the efforts of some pretty awesome human beings.
Here some highlights from this exhibition;
Context from Namibian Human Rights Advocates
The event was launched with a notable mindfulness for the context of where it was being launched. The work has been showcased in different parts of the world, including Mexico, South Africa, Mozambique and Switzerland and it’s great to see that the project takes into consideration the conditions and background of its destination country. Created with the notion that while human rights are for everyone, they are not a ‘one size fits all’ solution.
Often times when the subject of human rights comes up, the risk of westernization disguised as human rights, especially because of the consequences of not being vigilant about intentional or unintentional colonial imposition. The need to guard contextual narratives is often a top priority when human rights are discussed because too many instances have come up where irrelevant solutions are applied. During the launch of this event, a panel discussion was held which included speakers from The Legal Assistance Center Namibia, UNFPA Namibia, Sister Namibia and the One Economy Foundation. The conversation highlighted an existing frustration with inadequate implementation of laws in Namibia, the need to expand on civic education and men’s engagement with Gender Based Violence Advocacy in Namibia. In response to this, a male engagement event in honour of the 16 Days of Activism against GBV was held on the closing day of the exhibition at the HISA Center. This exhibition was more than just a moment to appreciate some good artwork, it also provided a helpful platform to unpack men’s roles in advocating against GBV, the reality of having great written laws but not being able to use to rely on them, either as a result of people not knowing them well enough or regulators not always making use of them.
Photo: Standing next to the “My Dear Shame” piece by Minna Pietarinen.
The Works, the Poetry and the Women
What makes the “I was born a girl” exhibition especially universal is that the collection includes diverse women from diverse communities, all bound by uniting rights and theme. The colour orange is present in all the pieces, the colour of the Unite to End Violence against Women Campaign which encourages people to wear orange to symbolize a future free from violence. It starts off with an overaching experience associated with human rights violations, shame. The piece titled “My Dear Shame” speaks on how isolating and overwhelming such experiences can be, and how human rights are protective boundaries that make room for love, and how these rights can bring about positive change. The right emphasized in this piece is the right to safety and a life without violence. Other works include stories of women who intenetinally went into the profession of politics and the protection of human rights such as Sanna Marin the former Prime Minister of Finland who advocated for the right to non-discrimination. Women who inadvertently fell into advocacy by unapologetically pursuing their passions, such as Alcenda Panguana and Rady Gramane who became symbols for the right to gender equality in sports after challenging stereotypes in boxing. Women whose efforts as community workers highlighted rights violations, such as Zanele Mbeki whose commitment to social work resulted in her significantly addressing the right to economic empowerment.
The I was born a girl exhibition ran in Windhoek from the 13th to the 19th of November 2024 at the Goethe Institute and from the 20th to the 27th of November 2024 at the HISA Center. To learn more about this work, visit www.iwasbornagirl.fi .
The owners of the rights shall be the holders of traditional knowledge, namely the local and traditional communities, and recognized individuals within such communities, who create, preserve and transmit knowledge in a traditional and intergenerational context in accordance with the provisions of section 4.
The application of this section is partially significant for how it allows customary groups to take ownership of their stories. The colonial era had oppressors taking the role of the authority on people’s stories. While we remain grateful for education, we can’t neglect the messaging that, “foreign knowledge is superior to indigenous knowledge.” This has played out as indigenous people not often being at the forefront of being historians of their own cultures. Since independence, many cultural groups have been making efforts to correct the stories that have been told about them. In this article we’re covering two works that have been conducted in Namibia, surrounding the cultural relationship between people and the ocean.
A phenomenal production retelling the story of the ǂAoni people and the ocean. The play consists of a cast of three, the father (Dawie Engelbrecht), the mother played by Hazel Hinda and their daughter Khoendikhoes, played by Chantell Uiras (Diolini). The story follows the three as they revisit the events of the colonial past and how these impacted on the current socioeconomic position of the ǂAoni people, a clan of Nama people mostly found around the !Kuiseb river in the Erongo region also referred to as the Topnaar community.
Setting things straight
One of the main issues covered in this play is that of the history of the community. Colonial era historians alleged that the community’s displacement during the colonial era was in response to countering fighting within the community and harm to the natural environment. The story starts by letting us know who these people were recognized as, ‘the water people’ or guardians of the water and marine life. Their role as caretakers was undermined by the ambitions of the colonizers. It was also clear that they were moved without consultation and that it was carried out in a forceful and chaotic manner. They did not stand a chance against the armed invaders and had no other choice but to comply. An all too familiar history. Before anyone else felt the hit of the colonial invaders, they, being at the coast, felt the first and strongest blows, and because the settling of foreign invaders on the coastal territory did not help their case much.
They spoke of the !Nara fruit (Acanthosicyos horrida), how it was not just food, but the unique way in which each family farmed it was a way to distinguish between families. After the displacement, restoring the practices that were central to their cultural identities has been a struggle not so much because they have lost the capacity to do so, but more because of the policies put in place to make sure that they never do Policies that have seen their way into post-independence Namibia. The play was not made out to be an attack on the contemporary government, but a channel to shed light to the fact that they (the Topnaar community) too are a people that were uniquely disempowered by the apartheid system, and that their story continues to be swept under other emerging and apparent issues. The story has been written in collaboration with academic research institutes like the University of Namibia (UNAM), One Ocean Hub, Global Research Fund, and UK Research and Innovation. Researchers such as Robert Vigne are also amongst those who have showcased the significantly disproportionate level of harm faced by the Topnaar Community during the colonial era. It’s safe to say that the message shared is one grounded in facts not a baseless critique.
When speaking to the audience after the play, a leader from the ǂAonin community, Joel Kooitjie, as well as, acting chief of community Stoffel Anamab, pointed out the struggles that their people continue to face today. Some impacts include the fact that they are only about two Topnaar people in local authority offices and that decision makers in their area can sometimes fail to capture their context very well and ultimately miss their needs. Furthermore, as a community that had largely survived on marine life for sustenance, bearing witness to the harm the ocean and its creatures have faced while disempowered from taking any feasible steps to help serves as a testament to the gradual weakening of their own development, this is in part because a great amount of their income came from inland circulation of oceanic goods. The historical and cultural relevance of ocean governance in this community has been significantly undermined and resulted in having to re-adapt to a life where their strongest skills remain in the backburner. It goes without saying that this need to suppress who they are in order to be convenient for invaders is a level of robbery that digs at the core of personhood.
Conclusion
The play ǂAONI //AES is an example of the Swakopmund Protocole at work. It’s the active reclaiming of a history by the people. It is also an assertion of who they are and who this land has known them to be. The impoverishment and struggle they face today is a result of being subject to a system that has unfortunately kept them down. The post-colonial government canntot take the blame for this, but, in their continuous efforts to decolonize Namibia, they can take the Topnaar Community and their pleas into consideration.
On the 21st of June 2024 the High Court of Namibia ruled in favour of declaring the sodomy law unconstitutional in the case of Dausab v the Government of Namibia. This follows years of activism alongside a steadily rising amount of homophobic attacks and an Anti-Gay Bill. We are in a pride revolution and here’s why its an important step against colonialism and genocide…
What does this have to do with colonialism?
Before colonialism, being gay was a norm. This sounds like a taboo to many who have fed into the false idea that tradition justifies homophobia. In many African countries, the word “gay” was normal enough to acquire its own title. For example; Eshenge in OshiWambo, Ngochani in ChiShona and Adofuro in Yoruba.
In the Namibian Ovambo cultural context it was believed that these men simply possessed a feminine spirits and were regular members of the community rather than ostracized minorities. German anthropologist Kurt Falk confirmed this during the 1920s having spent time with several Namibian tribes, including the Ovambo, OvaHerero, Nama and Himba. Ethnologist, Carlos Estermann supported this during the 1970’s and added that it was a culturally acknowledged ‘third gender’. The very first anti-homosexual trial was conducted under the German colonial rule. Four German men were banished for having defied paragraph 145 of the German Code which outlawed sodomy. This outlawing of sodomy was carried on by the South African colonial regime after taking over Namibia as a protectorate. If it isn’t already clear, the anti-homosexual laws were not born of tradition but of colonialism.
Over time, the colonial effect of self-rejection (a phenomenon whereby subjects to colonialism consciously reject colonialism but have learned to look down on their ethnic origins, cultural groups, cultures and customs) included a rejection of the LGBTQ+ community. Colonialism left in its wake, many with the idea that “all are equal but some more equal than others.” In our context, this idea from George Orwell’s animal farm wasn’t limited to just financial pursuits, but to the pursuit of love and happiness as well. A 2013 baseline study revealed that about 73% of nmaibians were under the impression that members of the LGBTQ+ community were accorded equal rights. This has not been true since the pre-colonial era. It has since become more evident that many are more aware of their own rights than those of others. So when words like moffie are blurted out in the same tone as the word nigger or kaffer , it is easy to play it off as common rhetoric despite the fact that such terms are intended to humiliate and undermine an entire group of people for natural differences that they have no control over. Worse still, many have used these rhetorics and the laws supporting them to justify their violence and hatred, and further to pervert religion to suit these hateful narratives in the name if dispensing justice for God’s wrath. But that’s another conversation. In short, the same way colonial laws emboldened racist attacks, is the same way anti-homosexual laws embolden homophobic attacks. The same way racism was rationalized to seem like something morally acceptable, is the same way homophobia is rationalized to seem like the more morally acceptable stance. It is not.
The Dausab v Government of Namibia Judgement
Fortunately many LGBTQ+ people and allies have taken a stand against these senselessly exclusive laws. Everyone should have the opportunity to freely pursue romantic relationships. Human rights are a core aspect of the Namibian Constitution and are found in Chapter three. These have been developed with various religious and ethical concepts in mind, with the goal of ensuring that the law treats us all fairly. That we treat each other fairly.
The court in this case had to deliberate on three issues that relate to this;
Whether the sodomy law violates the right to equality (Article 10(1))
Whether the criminalization of same-sex relationships between men serves a justifiable purpose
The balance between the interests of society and the interests of gay men
A few interesting points came up during the discussion that led to the decision that the sodomy law is unconstitutional. These are that;
If the same act takes place between men and women, it is not criminalized, which means that this law targets and unfairly discriminates against men on the basis of gender.
This law does not serve a legitimate purpose. The moralistic justification that sex between men is unnatural is subjectively held by people whose rights are not infringed by the existence of these consensual relationships. Upholding these peoples morals over those directly affected by this law goes against the principle of democracy.
Outlawing these men’s private relationships is irrational and serves no justifiable purpose.
Although the discrimination differentiating heterosexual men from homosexual men is not covered by the grounds listed in article 10, it still amounts to unfair discrimination.
This landmark judgement has made room for more Africans to enjoy their sovereignty within the continent. If we keep moving in this direction, LGBTQ+ may not be discouraged from living and thriving in their own continent, and in turn, will not move away from helping their continent thrive. LGBTQ+ rights are human rights. Let’s change the statutory provisions to make them more inclusive of LGBTQ+ people.
Figure 1: President Nangolo Mbumba (Left) and Vice-President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah (Right)
The former president, Hage G Geingob is to be buried on Sunday the 25th of February 2023, as we draw nearer to the day, more and more people are curious about who this man was, the legacy he left and the successor to his office. In what turned out to be nearly clandestine, the Zenze page got access to the inauguration of the vice president who is being elected in accordance with Article 34 of the constitution of Namibia.
Article 34 requires the vice-president to take over as the interim president in circumstances such as the present one. President Mbumba will be the interim president until a new president is elected.
The Zenze team is no island to this curiosity, and so on the 4th of February 2024 a teammate found herself at this inauguration, hearing about the man, the legacy and the successor from some of those who were closest to him would beat a Google search rabbit-hole. It was without a doubt the type of nerve wrecking adventure for the young journalist, that makes it into an individuals’ “Hi, that’s me, I bet you’re wondering how I got here…” life reels. The room was top-full of dignitaries, head-officials from the NDF, Correctional Services and Police, not to mention members of the very slight 1% in Namibia.
“I just wore the face of someone who was meant to be in the room, broken camera in one hand and a phone on just 2% in the other…I just knew I had to be there,” she recounted a story that’ll make a good analogy for overcoming imposter syndrome someday. None apart from a keen-eyed correctional services official questioned her presence there after noticing that her camera wasn’t working. The room was sullen, sure, a new leader was being promoted, a woman becoming the first female vice-president of the nation, the occasion had all the elements of a celebration, but the circumstances that led to this were the undertone of the entire proceeding.
The somberness of it all was unavoidable, with congratulations delivered in light of shoes that needed to be filled rather than a new job attained. To say, “no pressure,” to President Mbumba would be like pointing at the eggshells surrounding his current role, and to say that to the newly elected Vice-President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, the first female vice-president of Namibia would be like telling her “hey, there’s a nail under one of these eggshells you’re treading on.” President Nangolo Mbumba has said that he will not be running for office in the November 2024 elections, and further added that even though he’s become president, he’d only ever dreamt of becoming a school principal, when they say “trust the journey” it’s because of stuff like this, you never really know how far that trust can take you, a title humbly claimed in light of the departure of his predecessor. Vice-President Nandi-Ndaitwah additionally takes up the role of the new presidential candidate for the South West Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO).
The Minister of Information Communication and Technology has announced that President Hage G Geingob will be buried at the Heroes Acre in Windhoek on Sunday 25 February and the event is set to be broadcasted to the nation. Presidential elections will be held in November 2024 and youths all across the nation are becoming engaged in civic action and voters are highly encouraged to go through the manifestos of the parties to make informed decisions as voters.
Follow us on instagram @zenze_blog for more updates on what we’re up to and listen here for the latest podcast episode.
Lately we’ve been exploring the freedom to practice any religion which is found at Article 21 (1)(c) of the Constitution of Namibia. In previous posts we’ve mentioned that this freedom is based on international agreements. These fundamental freedoms don’t exist in a vacuum, here is a small reference list on some international agreements that form the basis of this freedom in Namibia.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 18 (Freedom of religion)
Article 20 (Freedom of Association)
Article 2 ( Anti-discrimination)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 18 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
Article 22 (The right to freedom of association)
Article 2 (Non-discrimination on the basis of religion or belief)
Article 26 (All persons are equal before the law)
Article 27 (Protection for religious minorities)
1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief
“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of hid choice and freedom either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of hid choice and freedom either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.“
Article 18
Now that we’ve covered some of the rules and grounds on this, lets take a look at some opposing perspectives on how this right is enjoyed. Recently the comment below was mentioned in referenced in relation to the Catholic Church creating a more inclusive policy which allows for the church to bless same sex marriages, something which the Namibian branch is strongly opposed to.
This is one interpretation of the African ethos in relation to the Christian African LGBTQ community.
On the other hand…
The African ethos has been seen to be broader than expressed in this statement. Works written by Adriaan Van Klinken voice an opposing opinion that you can check out. Adriaan Van Klinken is a Professor of Religion and African Studies at the University of Leeds has some interesting views we can consider.
A lot of religious leaders see religion as being inclusive
He talks about the advocacy work of Bishop Desmond Tutu in this article, pointing out that while he faced some opposition from his colleagues he, and thought leaders like him, viewed homophobia, heterosexism and racism in the same light. In Namibia there are organisations that advocate for religious LGBTQ+ persons and their allies such as Tulinam.
2. The Bible can be interpreted in a way that upholds Ubuntu
In a book he co-wrote with Ezra Chitando, Reimagining Christianity and Sexual Diversity in Africa, they explore a radical theology of inclusivity, where they unpack two myths. The first ‘myth’, commonly articulated in African nationalist discourse, both within the churches and in wider African society, is that homosexuality is a purely Western phenomenon, imposed on Africa by the ‘gay lobby’ and other international human rights advocacy groups, a product of neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism. The second stereotype originates in Western secular discourse, which often characterises Africa as intractably homophobic, fuelled by a regressive, pre-enlightenment version of Christianity.
3. Homophobic attacks can be dehumanising to an extent of missing crucial lessons in Christianity
The human rights listed above also apply to LGBTQ+ people who are religious. In this article, he speaks about a wide array of effort against the LGBTQ mentioning how those who have been discriminated against in Uganda seek refuge in Kenya but are also subject to harrassment there. In the article he also talks about the documentation of lives of African LGBTQ+ people through art, one work he cites is a collection of stories titled Stories of Our Lives, wherein 250 stories are submitted by Kenyan people showcasing everyday human experiences.
Conclusion
A view of religion in Africa that is inclusive also promotes concepts that are central to Africa like Ubuntu. While neutrality and middle grounds are difficult in most instances, Adriaan van Klinken believes that room seems to exist for an interpretation of religion and the freedoms associated with it, which promotes togetherness rather than division and conflict.
The Zenze podcast is up and we’ve been focusing on the fundamental freedoms mainly the freedom to religion found at Article 1 (1)(c) of the Namibian Constitution and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Every right and freedom is limited and its for good cause. Article 22 of the Constitution of Namibia points out that every limitation has to be general and not aimed at a specific individual and that each limitation must be clear, if it is based on another existing law, that law must be pointed out, there should be no blurred lines. The writers of the Constitution, having just come out of apartheid knew that every right came with power, it is just easier for some people to exercise some rights and freedoms than others, because of social factors like race, class, gender, and, when it comes to religion, divine titles and leadership positions.
The news about TB Joshua passing away in 2021 had many evangelicals heartbroken. The man had established himself as an icon. Recently, in a BBC documentary a few women, some of his closest disciples spoke out about who this man was in reality. This documentary showed that TB Joshua was the leader of possibly one of the biggest cults in the 21st century. There are a few lessons we can get from watching the documentary to help us identify when the fundamental freedom to religion is being violated with some reference to the Constitution;
There is abuse going on and reporting it will cause harm
A few brave women spoke out about the sexual and physical abuse carried out by this man, and it goes without saying that this could not have been an easy task for them. They also spoke about how their faith was used to normalize this abuse. One woman, Jessica a Namibian woman, told a story of when she questioned a possible victim about this behavior and she was reported and beaten for it. Standing up for themselves was an act with horrid consequences. Safe to say, if you are part of a religious group where there is physical, sexual, financial, emotional or spiritual abuse. RUN. One helpful way, apart from a leader crossing boundaries, is to look at the consequences that will come if people report issues that they feel are violations.
A system that seeks to breakdown while calling it ‘empowerment’ : Dignity and Slavery
The documentaries had many counts of people who were made to feel special for a time just to be broken down. The narrative, to the disciples was that of a humbling process, but the leaders knew what they were doing. That if they kept building up and breaking down people, eventually people would start associating the leaders with the role of ‘God’ the source of power. It was intentional but was framed as a natural part of the process. There is a difference between respecting leadership in an institution and having the right to dignity attacked to preserve the power of leadership in an institution. Aricle 8(2)(b) makes the right to dignity inclusive of torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.
Slavery and forced labour are prohibited by Article 9, and from the documentary, we learn that excessive servitude, to TB Joshua, to the point where people felt like zombies was framed as honouring God. In the documentary they spoke of how this came about by overworking the synagogue disciples into a state of perpetual exhaustion, such that they couldn’t really think for themselves. Meanwhile the narrative that having the approval of the leader (TB Joshua) meant having this extra level of honour in the eyes of God, then making them crave his attention, which he would give and take away on a whim. Having them chase a carrot on a stick for his own ego boost. One woman, spoke of how she was beaten on multiple times, he forced himself on her, and yet held her in a high position, amongst others giving her ‘need to know’ tasks like the recruitment of westerners. He took advantage of their desire to get closer to God.
Targeting the Vulnerable : Liberty and Privacy
Speaking on a calculated “humbling” process. The westerners, particularly white westerners were unwittingly walking into a trap. He took advantage of the fact that they were foreigners, made them afraid of the rest of Nigeria ensuring that safety could only come if they saw things the way he did. One of the closer disciples spoke of a very well thought out practice of recruiting members, playing on their desire to be part of a group that shared an interest as them, then dehumanizing them for their loyalty. For several years on end. Article 7 of the Constitution protects the right to liberty, no one should unlawfully be kept from moving freely.
His focus on westerners and foreigners was calculated. It was the young, bright eyed, hopeful and innocent ones that he would target with the goal of molding them into his little puppets. Targeting young people is not the main problem the problem is the intention behind it, investigating them to learn exactly how to manipulate them. They were robbed of their individualism for what they were made to believe was a greater cause. They had no privacy, cameras were all over, including in showers and being fully dressed in the dorms was not welcomed. The right to privacy is protected by Article 13, the only exception being that there is reasonable suspicion that there is criminal activity, which may be highly unlikely with young people joining a church youth group. It’s a little more difficult to see this one off the bat but if there’s an option to be a disciple in anything with the option to leave and to be yourself getting thinner as you get more into it, there’s a problem, if you have to be investigated, have your privacy unlawfully deprived to keep your place there, there’s a problem.
Loyalty to the movement
Above all else. Loyalty to the version of Christianity pedaled by TB Joshua and inadvertently loyalty to him, is what was meant to stand before everything. The fundamental freedom is violated when the ability to think for yourself is robbed from you. There is something wrong with an organization when you can’t criticize it.
What happens when you leave?
One way to test this is this is to look at what happens to those who leave? In the documentary, they mentioned that who ever said they wanted to leave was humiliated, disgraced, to paint them as an unholy entity against the church. If leaving comes with tribulation, it probably means they’re after your free -will and the point of having the freedom of religion is to actively practice free will in a way that is fulfilling and does not cause harm to others.
Conclusion
All in all the TB Joshua documentary is an eye opener and a reminder that even those we look up to can violate our rights and freedoms. Click this link to watch the first episode of the documentary.
July was the YLO pride month, possibly because of a protest against performative June pride commitments, also possibly due to scheduling delays and a lost wordpress password…I’ll never say… The discussion is non-the-less an important one. We discussed South Africa on the instagram page, which is often heralded for having progressive laws, yet we saw that changing the law often isn’t enough, social changes still restrict the enjoyment of human rights. Hate speech is often regarded as mindless opinions, yet can have the impact of harmful people justifying their violent behaviour with these views. This month we also took a look at two more conversations around LGBTQ+ rights:
The argument of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities being “unAfrican” and rejected by the Bible
The argument that there are more important issues
This is how those played out;
The argument of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities being “unAfrican”and rejected by the Bible
This has never made sense to me. The fact that measuring the extent of Africanness is in the same breath as Biblical principles doesn’t compute because it’s never been a secret that the Bible was a significant tool for colonisation to succeed. We don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater here, the Bible is also very insightful and a source of peace for many, in this instance though, it seems to me like those who rely on this argument can’t see that they have taken on the role of the coloniser, using a book of hope and love to perpetuate the idea of “hating in the name of God.”
But pushing the contradiction of this aside, suppose we accept the Bible as the standard of what should be accepted in Africa and what shouldn’t, there are things that are very obviously unAfrican and rejected by the Bible; heterosexual couples sharing clothes (Deuteronomy 22:5 technically forbids a girl from looking cute in boyfriend’s hoodie and a guy getting cosy in his girlfriend’s gown), women preaching
(1Timothy 2:11-12; 1Corinthians 14:34; Acts18:26; 1Corinthians14:35) , braiding hair (Timothy 2:9-10)….these are commonly accepted with ease and translated to purposfully accomodate more ways in which many Africans want to exist authentically and comfortably, yet relationships between consenting adults are too difficult to accept by people who are not even required to participate in those relationships.
Identity and Divisions
During this month I came across the idea that ‘if we view our roots and tell our stories from slavery the best we can hope to be is great slaves,’ similarly I’m of the view that if we focus on the lines that divide us to justify exclusion, we can only hope to be more divided. Is Africanness about who you sleep with? I got into a mini-silent protest against stating my sexual orientation and gender identity, mutually fuelled by me swivelling on the spectrum and my interest in this subject. I don’t think it’s fair that members of the LGBTQ+ community have doors closed for revealing this part of life, take for instance the Digashu case, if gender and sexual orientation were not used to make decisions about people’s choices, then a family could have peacefully moved through countries just as any heterosexual headed house does. I will acknowledge that this is also a pessimistic view of self-identifying, because this is also rooted in having pride for one’s own existence and celebrating oneself fully and loudly.
I also could not articulate this view well and my mini-protest was met with some reasonable conflict, my initial reasons were that it puts a bull’s eye to violent attackers and that its information that should only be asked by people who are romantically interested in a person, not as a means to try categorise a person. An acquaintance would tell me me that the bull’s eye is necessary because it is more harmful to hide from adversity, and that martyrdom is a risk that comes along with this, it made ‘picking the hill you would die on’ make more sense too me. This same acquaintance sees a necessity in categorising people as a way that people make sense of the world more easily, I can understand this view because it is human to do so, I do it too. But, I think its important to challenge these boxes rather than rely on them. I’m on the fence with how this can be applied because I can also see how it can result in people not being accepted as unique beings, but leaning on categories and boxes perpetuates stigma and discrimination and has the very possible effect of stopping people from broadening their experience of life.
Conclusive View: Differences in identity are part of being in a community. We aren’t all the same and its important to accept and acknowledge that. Viewing sameness and peace as synonymous is harmful. That’s the formula for oppression, because in a system like that, only those with power get to define and maintain the sameness while calling it peace. To be African intrinsically means accepting and welcoming diversity and that we don’t all understand each other and that’s okay for as long as we are not harming eachother, we have about 3000 tribes in this continent and none is more African than the other. Expanding this to diverse sexual orientations and gender identities involves accepting the reality that we are not all identical and that is something worth celebrating, each of us should be able to exist in fulll bloom of uniqueness.
The argument that there are more important issues
This argument assumes that problems can’t be solved concurrently. It undermines the whole LGBTQ+ movement and treats those in it like toddlers having a tantrum over wanting sweets when the electric bill isn’t paid. As if a group of people saying, “I can’t go to the police, they will chase me away because I’m gay, but I can’t go home because there are people who want to kill me for being gay,” shouldn’t be a human rights crisis. Had the word ‘gay’ been exchanged with the word “Christian” or “Black” the insensitive response of a passive “Then stop being that way,” wouldn’t roll so easily out of people’s mouths.
Not to mention, other issues aren’t often pitted against eachother in this way. I’m yet to hear someone respond to the issue of youth unemployment with the notion that its not important because we need to focus on more important issues like sanitation in informal settlements. I can guarantee that the outcry over how dismissive this is would lead to an almost instant loss of political power. No one likes to be dismissed, especially when they are crying out for help.
Democracy is intended to make sure all voices are heard. In practice this can be difficult for several reasons. The most clear to me are that;
“The power is in the people” seems like a formality. The power is in the administrative decision makers.
Many administrative decision makers are largely influenced by their political power and rhetoric than their administrative role.
Political power mostly rests in the hands of post-colonial war heroes and I’ve explored how these powers can be destructive in their goals to maintain power here
Innovative thinking and new ideas are only welcomed by these powers if they are profitable or if they promote their ideas.
Ultimately, it seems like the goal of democracy in action is to maintain the ideas of the political power in force, not to put the power int the hands of all the people. The question of “your rights end where mine begin” is poorly addressed when it comes to just recognising that the LGBTQ+ community is a community of human beings who deserve human rights. A common response to “You’re not part of the relationship, no one is asking you to participate in them, your life will go on as it usually does” they say it will confuse the children. Children are easily confused by many things, shall we ban taxes, mortgage, talking about puberty, mathematics and school in general because of the risk of confusion? This, in my view, is a veiled response instead of an honest admission; “I won’t know how to respond to my children if they ask.”
Love and Culture
Religious dogma and cultural beliefs provide a comfortable standard for accountability. What we owe and expect. Human Rights does this too. Unfortunately, these face the challenges of political power being very linked to control of decision making in the law.
I got into a couple of conversations with two men who were against the lgbtq+ community. Both of them argued about morals and that there are more pressing issues. Both of them pressed on the idea that the goal of romantic relationships is to produce children. Both seem to me like genuinely kind people who have different views from mine. I did get heated when they said statements that are dismissive, but I had to bite my tongue, it was not the time to shove my perspective down someone’s throat, but to listen. We may never reach an agreement, but it may be possible to create more acceptance and inclusivity, but perhaps if we see where the other side is coming from, we can foster more conversations that allow for inclusive laws and accomodating societies.
I’ll just point out that this says a lot about why the crisis of single motherhood and absent fathers is riduculously high in Namibia. It comes off as if they think they have fulfilled a duty by making someone pregnant. But I digress, love is gatekept, or rather, what love should look like is so heavily guarded by heteronormative views even when the arguments in favour of them make no sense, this isn’t new information, and sometimes its for the safety of those who cannot consent to love but are subjected to harm in the name of a one sided idea of love. We did agree on the idea of love being co-built, that consenting adult couples should help eachother determine what they want their love to look like. This idea did not translate well with my conversation buddies when I asked if we could make it about hetero and homosexual couples having that right when they are in the same community. Adult-adult relationships self-determining in general without others qualifying them by gender or what they’ll do in the bedroom. These interactions were also limited to brief 10-15 min cab rides so we didn’t really go into too much.
When I brought up couples who can’t have children, those who choose not to have children, those who vow celibacy for life, IVF, and adoption, the response would often still go back to the Bible allegedly saying that love is only for heterosexual couples for the purpose of children. The two men I spoke to seemed well intended, their belief is also in love, seemingly, love of the community. They spoke to me as caring fathers trying to correct a lost child. It felt demeaning, and whether that was their intention or not, the core of it is that they believed they were being helpful. That made me challenge the idea that homophobia is motivated by hate.
It dawned on me that their expression of care and love is control, to not listen but to just lead, after all the man is the “head.” At least that’s what I concluded from that interaction. And when I say love I don’t mean some deep sentimental connection, I mean an ethereal platonic care that religion and spirituality say exists in all people.
For a good while it would upset me that the hating in the name of God is a thing, and that many are of the view that it is necessary to do so. While some do hat in the name of God, others decide what God’s love should be and that everyone should view it that way and follow their understanding. Moral superiority. People are responsible for their own souls, we must not try to be the messiah for everyone. Everyone shoul be free to express their own spiritual views as they wish. If I decide that my god is a cricket on a cloud, and I am not harming anyone, that’s my business. Friendships, relationships and the like should be about how we relate to eachother. Conversations on morality can take place with the goal of gaining insight rather than imposing views. A general view that none is greater than the other.
These conversations would fortify my ideals on feminism, equality and human rights. Mostly that patriarchy is a massive contributing problem. These men genuinely seemed to speak from a place of concern and care, to give some context, one is a cab driver I have been familiar with for a while who often drives me from school, and during exams extended his hours specifically to drive female students who were staying late at the library. We saw each other in town and it was an instant reminder of how broad life is, that feeling when you see your school teacher doing something ordinary people do like buying bread. I knew he’d had that same feeling when he jokingly asked, “I didn’t think you went anywhere else but UNAM, so you also come to Wernhil…” The other I had met for the first time, and he was a jolly guy who was just being social and bubbly, he shared jokes and small anecdotes from his life, before saying “aaah but I don’t understand why so many children are lost, this same sex ruling will be the end of us,” which shifted the conversation significantly from an upbeat “My son eats bread like I own a bakery, I don’t understand that boy’s stomach, but he will never refuse food, its good because the groceries don’t go bad…” into a low toned “My daughter, you are lost…” They didn’t speak violently, but I do wonder if I was just spared harshness for seeming correctable, but again this ‘wondering’ might have been my own implicit bias expecting harshness from calm men who just have different views from mine.
Conclusive View: Undermining rights violations and systemic failures that are happening concurrenty is a patriarchal approach to problem solving. I say patriarchal because not everyone is involved in deciding what the priority should be and patriarchy has made many facets of life that are intended to be inclusive, very heirachical. Democracy plays out as being about who has power and religious love seems to be about controlling behaviour and beliefs not acceptance.
The concept of intersectionalism can be described as the occurrence of discrimination based on various categories of identity such as race, class and gender .
Kimberle Crenshaw captures the fundamental nature of intersectionalism in her analysis of black women’s existential experience. This was in a time when intersectionalism was not practiced within the political sphere. Her work is particularly essential when highlighting how intersectionalism satisfies the need for inclusive dialogue . She pointed out the harms of a single axis political atmosphere where discriminatory practices and the multiple -isms, are discussed as being mutually exclusive to each other.
What often results in such settings is a favoring of the more privileged among those who are discriminated against. The narratives of those who are privileged in some aspects becomes prioritised. For example, white women not being harmed due to the privilege of being white, Crenshaw refers to the case of Moore v Hughes Helicopter Inc (144), where there was a lack of consideration for the unique experience of black females being separate from the type of discrimination they endured alongside white women.
Communication involves trying establish a common understanding with someone . Taking this under consideration it is essential to note that teaching intersectionalism in communication is vital as a means to capture the, “endemic and everyday nature of racism and sexism and how these other -isms manifest in and through communication.”
Democracy is a tool that should essentially allow for the election of individuals who represent the majority. Which often excludes a significant minority, one may take under consideration, the treatment of the LGBTQ community in Africa as well as that of women in political spheres prior to the 21st century.
In the USA, Kamala Harris represents a remedy of the communication disparity that can result from a lack of consideration for intersectionality. Among the communities she represents, there are black women, Indian women, racially mixed individuals and immigrants. In this regard she can be said to be sensitive to the unique experiences of each of these groups and would be able to convey the concerns of these groups.
This does however raise the question of whether or not she can adequately represent and communicate the needs of groups she is not a part of, such as the LGBTQ community, a question raised in the case of Payne v Travenol, wherein the court concluded that because the plaintiffs were Black women they could not adequately represent the needs of their black male colleagues. Simply put, being oppressed doesn’t mean one can understand the oppression of another.
It is true that the intrinsic nature of suffering that different groups go through cannot always be captured outside the scope of experience, however it is important to have someone who understands that discrimination can manifest in layers rather than as a single arch -ism.
Community movements in Africa do this well by building bridges where intersectional concerns arise. Identifying commonalities has been a useful way to start conversations, with one key one being the colonial era. Relating on the mutual grasp of inequalities that existed back then, makes dialogues in political spaces easier to have.
This isn’t a “save all” technique though, there is a risk of drowning intersectional issues in colonial narratives. On many occasions the colonial narrative has been weaponized by many founding parties as grounds for why they should forever be in power. In such spaces, intersectionality is overpowered by the colonial rhetorics and minimized to “less than” issues.
Striking a balance in intersectionality and communication is key to political change.
*Note that ‘African’ here is used to refer to black people, including those historically displaced by slave trade and the colonial and neo-colonial processes.
It’s 2021 and the feminist movement has circled right back to the unnecessary out-grouping through the #Pickme and #Tweetlikeapickme trends. I say circled back because it has been pointed out through many historical events have shown to us that more than anything that divisiveness is counter-productive to the feminist movement. It became clear that any racial divisions that were underlying in the women’s suffrage movement resulted in wins that only really benefited the white women who had the significant racial advantages of the time, it did not result in a successes for all women, hence the ensuing waves of feminism and identification of the African Feminist Movement, often with limited trend based participation from those who benefitted from earlier movements.
The African Feminist Movement functions alongside other human rights movements as we saw during the 2020 BLM protests following the cruelty the world witnessed against George Floyd, it was clear that the injustices associated with being black resonated among black people all over the world. Feminist protests in solidarity with this captured Angela Davis’ notion that Black Lives Matter embodies feminism. Anyway, I digress, my point is this movement cannot be a success for as long as there is any amount of injustice existing alongside it, this is why it does not make sense to me that it be the source of any amount of injustice especially when it is directed towards women, the very group it seeks to protect. Out-grouping seems to only be recognized as an injustice when it captures men as the villains, e.g the exclusion of women from the workforce, but what about when it villainizes the people the movement seeks to protect? In this regard, the out grouping of the pick-me seems totally justified because she has aligned herself with men.
A comparative look at the unjust out-grouping of transgender women and the out-grouping of the pick-me. In both instances there seems to be a failure or refusal to accept that ‘they’ are women too, your need to understand and accept them is not the point , the point is that the movement seeks to defend us in all our differences. No woman needs to fulfill a certain standard to gain validation of her femininity, this includes the pick-me. The exclusionary ‘they’ labeling is what I am addressing here. It is counter-active to the goal of unification and change, an unnecessary divisive pause which strengthens the solidarity of those against the movement.
The pick me phenomenon was created to call out women who were allegedly directing their actions in favour of the male gaze. It came as a response to women who supposedly thought they were better because they fulfilled the terms of the patriarchy. A common example is the classic African church aunty who chastises young women because of how they fail to meet the patriarchal standard of the perfect woman, one who simply accepts the rules that are there to make the life of a man simpler; cook, cleaner, passive sister-wife, child bearer and rearer, modest dressing beautician with a wild side in the bedroom, one who strives for marriage through being a man pleaser… the whole lot. Or the ever portrayed chill, all vibes girl who has gained the trope of ‘not being like other girls.’ Although the term seeks to make the women reflect and change their behaviour, the interests and characteristics of those who allegedly fit this description often spills over to innocent bystanders. For example, the African church aunty may hold a deep respect for women’s rights while enforcing rules to do tasks and chores around the household as a means to add healthy structure and discipline in a young woman’s life, she may view this as a healthy way to prepare them for an unbalanced world especially if she felt these lessons were helpful to her and her generation mates. The chilled girl and her trope may have been a result of undue male sensationalism rather than a deep desire to seek the male gaze, the interests she is often described to have can be had by anyone, the application of the term ‘pick me’ in association with specific interests alienates any young woman who may have those interests and further distances them from the feminist movement, rejecting what has rejected a part of who they are. It is a term that often neglects context and situations with the sole goal of exclusion.
Granted there are characters who have fed into maintaining patriarchal views, she is no more a threat to the movement as a whole than a child who believes some things are just for boys and some are just for girls. The true villain is the one who taught them that and keeps enforcing it, the real villain is the one who has made those views seem to be facts. More often than not we see that this woman has been taught that there is virtue in resilience and endurance, in many cases she suffers some form of oppression as well. She may choose to accept it as a norm or may really be enjoying the benefits that are beside this suffering, she does not mind her reality. A narrow focus on creating a blanket “type” of woman like this, distracts from the greater reality, which is that of the oppressive force behind her, aiding that position by giving sense of justification to be antagonistic.
While this woman, the pick me, has contributed to the oppression and confinement of other women, oftentimes seen as the face of men’s rights movements that undermine feminism and believe feminism to be an anti-men movement, with little to no knowledge of the intersectional aspect of feminism, her goal may be to protect the men in her life who have been helpful to her, her fight, albeit naïvely informed, is against social exclusion and in favour of some sort of justice. In this regard her actions only manifest as further evidence of the injustices that feminism seeks to fight, she is not an enemy, just a tragic tool of the enemy, like if the movement against black slavery became solely focused on putting down house slaves or those who worked along the slave masters. They were a sore part of the problem, but they were not the problem.
The context in Africa is such that divisions were created through the formation of very static boundaries between countries, various language groups, customary groups, dialects not to mention factors such as colourism and the massive gaps between social classes. There are injustices surrounding each factor I have mentioned, which have caused and still cause separation between people who are suffering together, there is no need to create any more division among ourselves.
It is a term that ultimately defies the entire goal of the movement. If anything the ‘pick me’ should gain some empathy for being trapped or viewed simply as a woman who is living her own truth, even if that truth is not particularly palatable, she must be addressed, individually on her view points directly, rather than to create an exclusionary term, fulfilling the movement’s desire for non-gender specific classifications. To give this group of women a diminutive term only creates more division in a group that would probably be more successful if there were efforts to create solidarity, an unnecessary division at that which only amplifies the perspectives of those against it; the idea that feminists claim to be in favour of amplifying all women’s rights in all their phenomenal uniqueness, yet still excluding women who act in a certain way.
So what if she claims to be better and gains the attention of a man? Or iff she is a ‘puppet for the patriarchal agenda?’ It is inconsequential if the women who are part of the feminist movement are pushing that agenda rather than placing efforts on petty out-grouping, it is the equivalent of echoing their alleged message that ‘you are not a good enough woman!’
ZENZE 